Page 42 - GSATJanuary2020

Academic Program Prioritization:

An Existential Threat to Geoscience

Departments

Carl Drummond, Dept. of Physics, Purdue University Fort Wayne, Fort Wayne, Indiana 46805, USA, drummond@pfw.edu

INSTITUTIONAL AND division courses for majors and accounted prioritization process. The first was the
DEPARTMENTAL BACKGROUND for between 3% and 5% of the departmen- absence of an accurate cost accounting
On 31 December 2016, the Department of tal total credit hours. while some 60% of protocol. Departmental data that should
Geosciences at Indiana University–Purdue instructional capacity was dedicated to gen- have informed academic performance
University Fort Wayne (IPFW) was closed, eral education courses heavily enrolled by metrics were both poorly defined and
and admission to the bachelors of science in non-majors (Drummond and Markin, 2008). incompletely recorded. Additionally, reve-
geology degree program was suspended. The Department of Geosciences served an nue generated by online courses was iso-
I was serving as Vice Chancellor for average of 31 majors and graduated four stu- lated from and independent of the general
Academic Affairs at the time, so it was my dents per year (Table 1). fund. Faced with an inability to access
job to make the necessary changes. Having accurate department financial data, the
been a member of the department for more THE CHALLENGES OF task force could not proceed with estab-
than 20 years, managing the processes that PRIORITIZATION lishing financially based metrics.
lead to that decision was extremely diffi- In March 2014, a small team of IPFW In response to these challenges, a survey
cult. The following review of the events that administrators attended a conference spon- was developed that required departments to
led to department closure is intended to pro- sored by the higher education consulting report on their mission, accomplishments,
vide a framework for understanding the organization Academic Impressions where accreditations, inefficiencies, academic and
context and process of program prioritiza- the ideas of Robert Dickeson, former presi- budget data, and departmental goals. The
tion. By implementing the proactive coun- dent of Colorado State University, were pre- task force members then provided written
termeasures described, other at-risk geosci- sented. Dickeson is an advocate for institu- responses to these reports.
ence programs may hope to survive future tional efficiency, and the conference was
economic oscillations and the increasingly intended to provide the training and tools PROGRAM CLOSURE
common application of private sector mod- necessary to launch a process of program On 6 May 2016, the task force issued a sec-
els of organizational efficiency within prioritization and elimination (Dickeson, ond report. Although a total of 41 recommen-
the academy. 2010). This approach involves the identifi- dations touching all aspects of university
Because of its significant service func- cation of a suite of performance metrics, the operations were presented, the core of the
tion, the Department of Geosciences at ranking of the institution’s programs into report consisted of three recommendations
IPFW experienced fluxuations in credit- quintiles, and investment or divestment in that fell within the broad heading of “Evaluate
hour production that were closely linked to programs according to their ranking. The Academic Program Efficiencies.” Recom-
the broader enrollment patterns of the uni- participants in the training process super- mendation 2.1 called for the creation of a set of
versity. Maximum enrollment occurred in vised a task force of faculty and staff who academic performance metrics, while recom-
fall of 2011 (Table 1). Subsequently, there were asked to develop assessment methods, mendations 2.2 and 2.3 called for the review
was a failure to recognize the possibility of, analyze data, and craft recommendations of academic programs and administrative
or adequately plan for, a post-recessionary both at the unit and the university level that organization at the departmental level.
decline in total campus enrollment. De- would guide resource prioritization. In late August 2016 a response to recom-
clining tuition revenue resulted in signifi- The IPFW task force recognized a series mendation 2.1 was issued by the adminis-
cant budget shortfalls from 2012 through of systemic challenges concerning the tration that defined the concepts of
2017. In response, a campus-wide hiring
freeze, voluntary early retirement programs,
and non-voluntary reduction-in-force pro- TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF PERSONNEL, CREDIT HOURS DELIVERED, AND STUDENT HEADCOUNTS FOR
grams were all implemented. However, even THE DEPT. OF GEOSCIENCES DURING ACADEMIC YEARS 2010–2011 THROUGH 2014–2015
these divestment plans could not keep pace Academic Faculty Credit Hours Head Count
Tenured/
with declining revenue. Year Tenure Track Continuing 100–200 300–400 % Majors Graduates
Lecturer
The department had historically been a 14–15 5 1 3938 236 5.7 29 4
small undergraduate program with faculty 13–14 5 1 4781 150 3.0 32 3
teaching a 3/3 load. Some 40% of instruc- 12–13 5 1 5394 215 3.8 29 7
36
1
5868
4
2.8
168
11–12
5
tional capacity was dedicated to upper 10–11 5 1 5680 183 3.1 33 3

GSA Today, v. 30, https://doi.org/10.1130/GSATG418GW.1. Copyright 2019, The Geological Society of America. CC-BY-NC.
42 GSA Today | January 2020